Slashdot Mirror
Author of Linux Patent Study Contradicts Ballmer
An anonymous reader sends us this EWeek story, following-up on the recent Linux patent scare. The author of the patent study is contacted, and says, "Open source faces no more, if not less, legal risk than proprietary software. The market needs to understand that the study Microsoft is citing actually proves the opposite of what they claim it does."
Now Microsoft will have to buy a new study that says what they want.
There's a surprise... Go figure Microsoft is misreperenting facts.
Microsoft mischaracterizes what someone says just for FUD purposes? Naaa, that would never happen.
From the article: "Consider this--not a single open-source software program has ever been sued for patent infringement, much less been found to infringe. On the contrary, proprietary software, like Windows, is sued and found guilty of patent infringement quite frequently."
While I am glad that OSS hasn't been suded yet, I think it's a bit immature to use this as a defence. First of all, you don't need to actually do anything wrong to be sued, and usually you're sued because you're making enough money that the plantiff might take a bite of it, or you have conflict of interest with the plantiff.
Wasn't it not long ago we read about SCO/MS Connection? It's pretty obvious now that the litigation is baseless, but this doesn't not stop corporates from taking it to the court.
Another example is FireFox, many claimed it's flawless, but the realistic others know that no software is bugless, but its OPEN status allows things to be fixed relatively quickly. So it would be unwise to claim that FireFox has fewer bugs and more secure because it hasn't been exploited yet.
So a better argument might be OSS, given it's open, any potential patent infringement will be digged out before it goes far.
However, this brings another question, can we safely assume that nothing incriminating is in the source? Patent itself is illusive enough, and how easy it is to find out about a particular patent, and then relate it to a certain class in the source?
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
As an end user, I'm mainly concerned about the legal exposure and risk that I face. Statistics on Open Source vs. proprietary patent claims, the validity of any such claims, the probability of future claims, etc., etc. is all largely irrelevant. I just want some assurance that my name isn't likely to appear alone beside the word "defendant" on any court documents.
...more breaking news at eleven.
So are open source vendors indemnifying end-users or not? Microsoft's legal exposure is priced into their software and the end user doesn't need to worry - can Linux users say the same or should they take out open source insurance?
Of course elrong was tempted by the ring - as was Galadriel... But more to the point, it is evil to take the lives of those whose only crime is to fall victim to the ring. This is why nobody ever killed Gollum. Elrond, like Gandalf, was wise and knew this.
That work for you?
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
Someone wants to sue me for patent infringement, that's fine. I don't have enough money for a defense but I'm going to make sure it costs them a fortune, and generates as much negative publicity as possible.
Any takers?
Isn't that like saying that "It's OK to be a terrorist as long as you're not the ring-leader?".
Fuck that. Elrond should have taken care of the business once and for all.
A representative of MSFT was talking *smack* about Linux? Who would have thunk it.
Here's food for thought. If MSFT was truly against *open source* and not their biggest threat [re: linux] they would be bashing *BSD as well.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
"In fact, the study said Linux potentially violates 283 software patents, not
...
'over 228' as Ballmer said in his speech."
Last time I checked 283 was over 228
I've this question. If I implement a piece of software that is already patented and put it in the public domain, can I be sued for this?
I mean in many CG books they describe algorithms that are patented, yet nobody sues the authors of the books. Can someone write a free implementation of a patented idea just for the sake of other people doing research on the idea (e.g timing and comparing certain patented algorithms, etc.)? This doesn't seem different from publication of said idea/algorithm.
It is my understanding that if somebody uses it for commercial purposes or if I try to sell it, then I/they 'd be liable. But can source code be considered as a publication in certain cases?
Imagine! A world where no one should have to pay for the software and hardware makers laugh all the way to the bank!
In a free market, making something "free as in beer" only serves to commodotize another product. All software is given away so software either becomes a service based industry - eliminating software shops that sell software without providing huge customer service contracts - or it becomes owned by the people pushing the hardware who use to push their own platform. And yes, some of the cost of software development is priced into the cost of the hardware.
Ideals are great but it's been a long time since an ideal was put into practise without being assfucked by opportunists. Open source has already served a great purpose by bring competition back into the software industry. If it's so revolutionary and superior, it will win in the end. Calling people scabs for reserving judgement and living in reality helps no one.
Except that if Microsoft violates 100 patents, they can just license or buy the company out that owns it.
If one patent is broken by an OSS Project, its much more of a burden.
OK, am I the only one who is seeing a legal problem here? If Coca-Cola said some study proves their cola is good for teeth, but the study shows it is harmful to teeth, don't you think the gov't, media, and a flock of 3rd party lawyers would descend upon Atlanta post-haste?
So what'll happen with this? Nothing. Your boss will still think MS is the bestest ever, the average dingaling will keep using Win98 SP1, and no major media outlet will make the tiniest peep.
Fight the power!
did you win a free ipod? build a case for it here
Terrorists live in the real world where there's no magical power that some terrorist-ring can wield over people to make them blow up crap.
LOTR is a story with magic in it that DOES do this kind of thing.
Real World. Fiction. Learn the difference.
RST
So you're saying you don't support Perens and his group offering open source insurance then? Ballmer is totally wrong about IP risk and open source - and so is Perens? Interesting.
Microsoft has been taken to court over patent violations before. Regardless of the outcome, it shows quite clearly that nobody is safe from the looming threat of software patents.
I'm sure Linux and Windows both violate some rediculous patents out there that have not been upheld in court.
But Ballmer is saying here, "Windows is 100% free from patent violations, Linux is one big huge patent violation. Yes, I know there is really no proof I can show you to back up what I'm saying, but you should take my word for it. After all, MS is run by businessmen and Linux is run by dirty pot smoking communist hippies."
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
What do you mean? Are you doubting the power of our all-mighty Christian God over the pagan gods of the east? How else could we have defeated the hordes of Babylon so easily in two wars?
Seeing as they don't really care what the studies are saying, I'm not sure why you think they'd need to buy one.
Study concludes A.
MS decides B.
MS distributes B across the globe, everyone repeats. End of story.
No new study required.
``The market needs to understand that the study Microsoft is citing actually proves the opposite of what they claim it does.''
This has been a common theme lately. Microsoft did the same thing with various other studies. The Bush administration used reports that claimed the non-existence of WMD in Iraq to support its claims that Iraq was dangerous. Recently, I read a column where someone claimed that increased Firefox use would harm security (the larger target theory), with a reference to a report that showed IE gets more exploits per user than does Firefox.
People get away with spreading all this FUD, because readers don't verify the information that's being cited. When Microsoft says the report found Windows cheaper than Linux, people assume the report indeed said so. Unless, of course, they are inquiring minds and want to know how the report arrived at its conclusion. Then they suddenly find the report concluded the opposite!
What I don't understand is why the authorities get away with it. THESE PEOPLE ARE LYING TO US. Have you seen Ballmer in court over his allegations? Or Bush?
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
What the fuck's wrong with /. these days?
Some people have realized that part about the fud factory.
:) Geena
I for one.................. overlords.
Perception keeps the "Linux is hard" mantra in people's mind, even when useability and ease continue to improve. I hope Slashdotters understand this.
So do not expect *cough*, *cough*, Monkey boy to stop his gospel soon, because I know that he knows that; you guessed it...It's all about Perception."
Cb..
No it's like saying "you wont be punished if someone force-feeds you a drug (against your will) that makes you violent, and you proced to hurt somebody"
YHBT.
Microsoft is willing to patent things, and to assume there are no patent infringments in the open source seems short sighted. And if they don't have the patents yet, eventually they will, as they push their technology forward. It isn't as if Microsoft consists of a bunch of incapable people, so eventually they will have, if they don't already, a lot of important patents open source will infringe upon.
When I was working at one large software company, we wrote a number of patents. One of the reason was that companies like IBM might sue you, and if you don't have patents you can exchange with them, the cost is higher during the settlement.
Honestly, it seems without "open source" patents, the open source community is fighting without an important tool, and like all wars of attrition with a determined foe, will eventually lose.
Ed Barbar, President and General Manager, Furnit USA
Since when does regurgitating Slashdot groupthink constitute a troll? Look - you've already been modded up by a slashbot.
"the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few"
- Capt. Spock
Star Trek 2
Except that what we consider to be the real world quite often turns out to be (almost) just as fictitious as LOTR. This is because we don't get much direct information about the outside world -- most of it has already passed through several stages of being interpreted, translated, edited, whatever. People are being lied to every day, all around the world (but can you call it being lied to if they don't know a different reality?). In a way, Real World is fiction (even the physical reality is fiction according to some). No wonder then that it's a bit hard to make a difference between these two.
Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
From the other side, the large number of trivial patents and prior cases makes intelectual property of many corporations worthless. Could we turn the play around and say that so caled IP is practically not enforsable, and thus valueless?
This is the only way they get to extract money from linux :-( As an end user I don't care, they aren't going to sue me because of the risks of a judge ruling in my favor. As a developer I'm not worried either, all my published source code is publicly availiable for them to audit at their lesuire and expense. Let me know if there's any problems and I'll attempt to resolve the matter.
(..ok you're reading this now - bear with me...but if you've not seen Lilo and Stitch then move on now!)
RE: "Author of Linux Patent Study Contradicts Ballmer"
Remember the scene where Nani quits her job at the restaurant and tells Lilo that "The manager's a vampire and he wanted me to join his legion of the undead.", to which Lilo mumbles a confirmation under her breath "I knew it!".
Well, I had a 'Lilo moment' when I saw this headline!
AT&ROFLMAO
Microsoft have teams of lawyers working to patent everything and anything and it gets granted (et al the 'to-do list').
OK, supposedly the system only works when a patent is contested in Court. But due to the $$$$ Microsoft have in reserves, anybody that legally owns (or doesn't infringe) CANNOT afford to mount a defence against the diatribe of ligation, and has to recede.
Microsoft win everytime, whether legal or not (and if it dubious, they buy them out anyway).
Monopoly rules... do NOT pass go.
But... think of something like the world of "Snow Crash". Yes, there was quite the closed-source, IP-locked down, Digital Restrictions Management computer system environment, but there was a much larger environment of "commie" computers, which we could analogize in today's terms as imported motherboards, cast-off hardware that isn't affected by DRM (but doesn't work with DRM mobos and OS), etc., that is, despite the actions of the closed source industry, rather well-off on its own.
Just like there is a rather vibrant black market in concert recordings, both in the open (Grateful Dead, Phish) and closed (just about every other "boot"), there will be in computer hardware.
There are a lot of powerful XBoxes that could be repurposed and still be quite useful, but we know that. Even more useful than cast-off PCs, but cast-off PCs are pretty easy to get from corporate sources in large numbers.
Despite assurances and best wishes by Microsoft, open source won a long time ago, it's just taken about 20 years to start playing out and reach that steep-slope uptick that Microsoft enjoyed so much in the 80's and 90's.
That GNU software was even available for Sun computers, gcc and all, back when you had to pay $$$ to get the Developer stuff (all the libs and Sun's cc compiler) to me is proof of this.
There will always be cockroaches, and there will always be a pesticide industry, but the cockroaches essentially have already won the war before we even started fighting it.
Go eat your rice pinko!
You mean the open source community and Microsoft disagree about something? How'd that happen?
They were getting along so well.
My little site.
That's the nice thing about modern justice. If you are a pattentholder and you want to sue microsoft in the best case you get the case settled and it will cost them a small fortune. Like they care.
OTOH if they sue any small developer he won't even have the money to defend his case and will be bankrupted even if he is guilty or not.
For a company that is so phenomenally rich you'd think they'd settle down and go enjoy the rest of their lives and do something usefull, like sitting in the garden. At least that's what I would if I was given a few billions. But instead they keep bullying the rest of the world.
If I was in their position, I wouldn't care a bit about the successes of others, like the playstation and the open source projects.
M$ rules the world even though windoze and .not are both the most inferior products out there. M$ is taking oems hostage like HP and Dell . Monopoly is only making M$ survive other wise they would be deadby now they have bought of the justice departmant .
Steve is not stupid by any means. He knew full well that he was lying. As we all know in business, the liars typically get away with their lies. Steve is scaring his audience into sticking with the devil they know. In the 1980's you could not get fired for sticking with IBM regardless of whether the product worked or not. That is how things are now. Just stick with Micro$oft and you keep your job. Whether your products work or not is not relevant. Essentially, Balmer is stating that the United States will eventually go after them. Given our recent escapades invading Countries with no pretense, I am sure places like Singapore are plenty scared. Sure he lied, but his audience will accept it hook, line and sinker.
Who knows? They could be true believers or closet Open Source types...
People get away with spreading all this FUD, because readers don't verify the information that's being cited...
What I don't understand is why the authorities get away with it.
Simple enough, isn't it? People don't RTFA. What's hard to understand about that?
I take issue with this. You're (unintentionally I assume) implying that because Firefox is not flawless, it doesn't have fewer bugs than IE. This is the fallacy of the excluded middle.
Nobody with a clue claims that Firefox is flawless. Just that it's more secure than IE. Which, when you think about it, is not a very strong assertion at all.
And how many patent lawsuits has Microsoft been involved in:
Microsoft, Tiscali sued over European download patent
Sun, Microsoft settle suit in billion dollar pact
Microsoft settles Intertrust patent lawsuit
Microsoft settles suit with Immersion
Microsoft settles 1999 Patent Infringement Case
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Touche.
The real irony of this story: Ballmer quotes a study done by the OSRM - a group that puts out studies about and then offers indemnification open source IP risk - and says that there is risk associated with Open Source that there isn't with Microsoft. Then the author - from the OSRM - refutes what Ballmer says, ignoring the fact that the very existence of his company hinges upon managing the very risk Ballmer was talking about.
Vaughan-Nichols is once again playing the voice of open source propaganda. And Slashdot loves him for it.
Linux is not an open, enter-as-you-will environment. Try submitting a change to the kernel and see how many desktops next year have your code in them. There are rules and methods for integrating patches into the kernel. They are adhered to. This doesn't mean you can't look at Linux, or make your own private changes, that should be obvious.
On Boeing: Your argument is flawed. Nobody is suggesting that Linux be improved by stealing design plans from similar systems.
On the License Never Being Tested: Do you just assume this because you yourself have never heard of a court test, or do you say this because it sounds nice? My court record has never "been tested in a court of law", but that certainly doesn't mean I have a criminal background, it just means I've never Been In Court. Similarly, if all disagreements over the GPL have been successfully defused outside of a courtroom, you have a situation where the GPL is both extremely effective and "never tested in court."
The notion that every license must be "tested in court" to be successful is flawed.
On distribution, your example: The organizations you list who expect royalties do not care how they get paid, just as long as they do. If, as you suppose, microsoft distributed windows for free, then no, those organizations would not be allowed to sue microsoft. If, however, microsoft STOPPED PAYING THESE PEOPLE for each copy that it distributed, they WOULD have grounds to sue.
The price of the software is between microsoft and the customers. If they decide to sell it for less than the amount necessary to reimburse those whose technologies are bundled with it, then they are selling it at a loss. They are not in violation of their agreements with other companies UNTIL they stop paying those companies per their agreements.
Dude, you need to wake up. It's called marketing. The average person is exposed to marketing messages hundreds if not thousands of times a day. Get a grip.
I don't respond to AC's.
Of this I am fairly certain. Per my blog, regarding this article.
There is no lack of buzz around patents. This article garnered opinions from some big names in the patent world, like Free Software Foundation counsel Dan Ravicher, law firms Phillips Fox and Baker & McKenzie.
Dan Ravicher of the FSF made this point: "patents pose less of a threat to open-source software than they do to proprietary software". He also states: "There are no patents that choose only to be infringed by open source. Any patent that imposes a threat to open-source software is going to impose a threat to proprietary software."
Well, the first point doesn't flow logically from the second point. Open source and proprietary software are in two different categories, from an evidientiary and a monetary point of view.
Access to source code
As a matter of evidence, violating patents in open source software is evident on its face: you can read the source code. Legible code makes a patent infringement case trivial. Proprietary software may require expensive reverse engineering, to devise how it operates and whether that operation violates the patent. There may be some legal questions regarding your capacity to reverse engineer legally, particularly with oppressive legislation such as the DMCA.
Access to software
Also, in this vein, to determine a violation of proprietary software, you must also have access to it. Proprietary software, particularly custom or enterprise software, may not be readily available to examine. Even if the software is available, it may require an onerous license that prohibits reverse engineering. Open source software is, almost by definition, accessible to anyone for examinition. Having a clause to prevent reverse engineering would be contrary to its object.
Licensing capacity
The lucid nature of open source software means that to obtain a mandatory license for a patent would be prohibitively expensive for two reasons. First, open source software does not have deep pockets or the capacity for a cross licensing agreement. Second, even if either were available, the nature of open source software would wholly undermine the purpose of the patent: an open source implementation of the patent would be available for free, unrestricted use.
A proprietary software company, on the other hand, has the economic means and an economic incentive to obtain a license or cross license, and would presumably do so only for the benefit of the company, and would not threaten the other economic interests of the patent.
Compulsory Licensing
Patent legislation provides for compulsory licensing, I understand, if it is in the public interest. However, even though a proprietary company could enforce this licensing by challenging it at the patent office, currently the cost would be prohibitively expensive to many, if not most, open source software developers. As well, compulsory licensing that undermines the patent, by creating an open source unrestricted implementation, would create contentious arguments about the real public interest. Patents protect the patentor, and as a secondary consideration they may have licensing imposed against the will of the patentor, if it is in the public interest. Their rights would likely trump.
For at least these reasons open source software is in a different situation than proprietary software, and as a result I am not entirely convinced of Mr. Ravichers's assertion, as they are quoted in the linked article.
MS is cheaper and more secure than Linux or any OSS?
what you're talking about. Patents actually do cover use of the invention.
I believe it was ambassoder Spock who said that.
They simply deal with patent problems as they are contacted by people who claim to own patents they infringe upon. They'll look at the patents, the demanded licence fee and at the company, and depending on the outcome they'll cross-license, pay a license fee or try to get the patent invalidated in a lawsuit (and possibly countersue the other company for patent infringement)
Those "solutions" are usually only viable for large companies though (regardless of whether it's about open or closed source), and not for small ones or individuals (again regardless of whether it's about open or closed source). In that sense the patent problems are indeed entirely independent of open vs closed source (who's going to attack IBM about patent infringements by Eclipse?), and only a matter of big vs small.
Donate free food here
I don't know how anyone can be sued for using patented technology when it's the ones profiting on the sale of said patented technology that would be the target of such a suit.
Since Linux is free, and is essentially a "home grown" solution (that is one that the user himself builds) no one has profited from the sale of unlicensed technology. In the cases where someone like RedHat are profiting, aren't they actually giving the software away and profiting from the sale of service contracts? So again, they should essentially be safe?
On the other hand, if the end-user can be sued for using unlicensed patented technology, then I have to repeat an earlier assertion that until legal indemnification as well as guaranteed legal defense agreements are rolled into the EULA, then I dare say people are at greater risk of being sued for using Microsoft software since the end user can never be 100% certain that the software they use (since it's closed source) is free of violations. It would shock me to see Microsoft add such to their EULA.
Not only can some random person/company launch an completely unfounded lawsuit provided they have the money to fund it, but MS has the ability to create real-world headaches. First, they have a lot of patents on their own. Some are dubious, but once granted they are assumed in court to be valid. Invalidating any particular MS-patent would be a hellaciously expensive court fight. Second, if a dangerous patent is not already in their arsenal, it soon will be because MS possesses what amounts (for all pratical purposes) to unlimited money, so they can buy-out any number of obscure patents.
So their increadibly deep pockets means they can litigate anytime anywhere on any issues and win simply by holding out longer than the opposition. Based upon their abilty to escape real penalties in the past, I have come to the conclusion that they even have more money to litigate (when it really matters to them) than the U.S. Government.
He's really a neural net designed to say things that generate money.
TCO only covers daily operation costs, upgrades, air conditioning, employees, etc.
All of the migration costs go under the category of "migration costs".
Otherwise, it is easy to increase the "TCO" of any other product to any amount you want by "assuming" that the company in the example will be running your product and that it will cost $X to migrate from your product.
$X includes all data migration costs, educational expenses, etc. So, you "estimate" that it will cost $500/person/hour to "re-train" the existing staff. If that isn't enough, then "estimate" that it will cost $750/person/hour to "re-train".
You can do the same with the data migration costs. If the company selling Product A needs Product B to be $100,000 more expensive, just "assume" that the example company will be running Product A and then "estimate" that it will cost $100,000 to migrate the data to Product B.I don't think so. They can add whatever costs they want to the migration cost amount, but they won't ever split it out correctly.
Otherwise, people could easily see that other solutions are far less expensive to run
Even if the US authorities do nothing about it, the EU's Competition Commissioner might have something to say.
If you read the article, the lawyer is playing the exact same game that Ballmer plays.
Like it or not, the study says, 'Linux potentially violates 283 software patents, not "over 228" as Ballmer said in his speech'(Quote from article though).
To say he was wrong on something that is plainly stated in the study is just stupid. Maybe say that his play on words was wrong, because the study says Linux MAY violate POTENTIAL patents, but to blantantly say he was spreading FUD is completely and utterly FUD on its own.
"Your assertion is that Linux violates a set of patents, and therefore as an end user I might be found liable and forced to pay dammages at some future date.* Does using Windows remove this problem for me? Are you willing to either guarantee that Windows does not have any IP property issues or to indemnify me if someone decides that they want $699 for every copy of XP that I use because they think one of their patents is being violated?"
cricket... cricket... Mr. Balmer - are you still there?
* For the sake of argument, I'm going along with Blamers FUD that end users are responsible for paying for IP violations, not the producers of the software.
If these MS allegations that Linux and Open Source software may violate certain patents turns out to be true (highly unlikely) - MS itself may be in trouble considering what they use to use their own products ;)
See the caption below
This photo provided by Microsoft shows Their search tool and the prefenece rankings that can be defined by the user. (AP Photo/HO/Microsoft)
[alk]
Technically unrelated to this article, but Fox News did go to court for making a story appear the oppisite of the facts. They lost at first, but won on appeal. Now they are suing journalists who refused to publish the false version of the report for court costs.
Fox News was able to get a court to rule that they have no responsibility to tell the truth because there is no specific law that say they have too. So if a news station can not be required to report on things honestly, then I don't think there is much change of getting a company (especially MS) to do so.
On of Many Links to this story
It's probably very easy to imagine it. Just like people can imagine the flying cars and vast underwater cities.
Meanwhile, back in the real world (http://www.eeye.com/html/research/upcoming/index
Security is based upon your security model and your implementation of it. A good model can still have buggy code. As the bugs are found and fixed, there are fewer problems.
A bad security model can have great code, but the problems keep coming. See all of the Windows anti-virus companies for a real world example of this. Rather than Microsoft fixing their security model, they rely upon 3rd parties to issue daily patches that are unbelievably specific to an individual exploit.
Yeah, remember Spyglass? They sold their Mosaic sources to MSFT for $50k plus a royalty on sales of the Microsoft branded web browser. How large was their last royalty check, again?
Also the NOT operator has been used in VB for I'm not sure how long. I'm not sure who the examiner of this patent was, but they are an idiot for patenting IsNot.
I'd like to get this and several of their other 'patents' thrown out, is there someone out there that is already trying to do this? As a former patent examiner, I know a little about patents.
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
Then again, the elves took their 3 rings with them across the water, knowing that the 3 were, in the end, controlled by the one.
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
"Open source faces no more, if not less, legal risk than proprietary software."
This statement is based on the premise that legal action will actually be based on perceived patent violations in open source software and that open source software contains either no legitimate violations or at least no more violations than most proprietary software. That is, all of the patents that it does violate are bogus being issued on prior art or trivial methods by a broken patent system.
Although it may well be the case that most of Microsoft's patent portfolio is unenforceable if contested by an entity with sufficiently deep pockets, I doubt that actual violations will be the deciding factor if litigations are pursued. I believe that Microsoft will weigh many factors before pursuing litigation and the legitimacy of their claim will weigh far less than any tactical or strategical advantage that perusing even a bogus law suit will offer.
Microsoft has repeatedly shown that it does not care about a fair and open market and is unconcerned of going afoul of antitrust laws. Indeed the weak response by the US justice system to Microsoft's past transgressions has had the same effect on this corporate bully as passive behavior has on the playground bully or the bully in the work place. A bully won't changed until forced to do so and some can never change.
To Microsoft, software patents are just another weapon to be wielded against anyone who would dare attempt to take a slice of the market. It is just another anticompetitive tool that they will use directly though litigation or indirectly though a FUD campaign.
It's time that the DOJ got their act together and removed this bully from the corporate playground. Microsoft needs to be broken into at least two and probably three separate entities before their blatant disregard for the antitrust laws permanently destroy any chance of an open and fair market in the software sector.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
The parent post is NOT A TROLL...
/. loses its credibility.
Even though we may not agree with the poster his post was not trolling but rather a valid point.
Please do not mod people down based on wether or not you agree. Be fair or
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
The thing that really gets me all confused is why in 's holy name do those enterprise people still use MS products in the first place.
Overpriced, under specced, complicated in the extreme and simply not fun to use.
Corporate IT is a weird, weird thing...
- It took western civilisation 2000 years to ensure popular literacy, and now we work with icon driven GUI's. Go figure.
I've been coding since 9am, but without me you would have no reason to post ;)
Sorry OSRM, I do not buy your reversed role of being the savior of the open source movement.
OSRM has made a number of damaging unsubstaniated claims concerning *possible* Linux IP violations - you have hurt the open source movement for personal profit.
With friends like OSRM, Who needs enemas?
SD
Ballmer's statements remind me of an old saying...
Opinions are like assholes, everybody's got one.
If you ask me Ballmer is just asking for it. Now every tom, dick and harry is free sue MS. MS is between a rock and a hard place. They can't on the one hand go on and on about IP and on the other hand fight too vigorously when other people claim IP infringement. They have a huge motivation to settle or license the product.
If you own any patents MS is the place to try to make money from them. They won't even put up much of a fight.
evil is as evil does
What's the difference? Maybe it is their ability to find out that the product being used is actually Linux or BSD. GPL requires the source to be made available with the license. IIRC, BSD doesn't require anything. For instance:
MS: Evil user, we are suing you because you dare to use BSD on your x86 instead of Windoze, therefore depriving us of payments we would certainly otherwise have had on that hardware.
User: I'm using BSD? Not that I know of. Here's the disk: prove it.
Judge: Where is the source? Give us the source.
User: What source? I don't have it, there's only an obscure binary that may or may not be BSD. It is titled "aslkjsd". Look at the binary all you want.
MS: (talking to themselves) Now what do we do? What is this "aslkjsd" thing?
To quote the parent post, "Real World. Fiction. Learn the difference."
...
But I guess you already knew that
What a long, strange trip it's been.
Ballmer's statement sounds eerily similar to Joe McCarthy's "I have here in my hand a list of 205 known members of the communist party..."
Probably just about as credible, too.
I think it makes an interesting statement about MSFT products to hear them bashing the competition instead of selling the competitive strengths of their products.
To me it's almost an admission that their product line is not cost competitve with OSS. That's not strictly a price comparison, it's a value comparison. MSFT products do not give you the same value for the $$$ that LInux and OSS. Something most of us here have known for a long time.
MSFT has been sticking it to their customers for years with higher and higher license fees, back-stabbing EULA's and Naziesque business practices. I think they're really underestimating how bad people dislike being dicked and how long their memories can be.
I know it sounds a little Pollyanna but it's unfortunate that going negative can be so effective. It's kind of like spam. Everyone complains about it but as long as it's effective we're going to keep getting buried buy it.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
... except the communist part. :D
It's also interesting to see the lawsuits that Microsoft has filed:
Microsoft sues controversial system assembler
Microsoft Sues Lindows.com Over Name
Microsoft takes on teen's site MikeRoweSoft.com
Microsoft sues Lucent in old dispute
Microsoft sues Brazilian magazine, IT official for defamation
Microsoft files lawsuit against five Md. firms
Of course, since they usually either buy out the company, develop and market a competing product, they don't need to resort to lawsuits for those type of situations.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
With all egg Ballmer's been getting on his he should open an omelet stand.
Wrong, you as an end user can be sued. Regardless of the indemnification. That's the law.
...since end-users are not liable for patent infringement, anyway - only the producer (and possibly (ob IANAL) distributor) of the allegedly infringing product would have any liability whatsoever. Besides which, software patents are ridiculous - if I can think through the "patented" fucntion in my head, it's just logic and math. Some day, maybe TPTB will finally get that.
I don't think you'd find much difference.
The best liars are the ones who actually believe what they're saying.
I'm working on it.
,users and desktop configuration. But evrything from netmounts and printer shares to ODBCConfiguration and Startment layouts should be possible
What do you get when you cross knopix, a pc with a Windows install and something that can convert the windows setup into a linux setup (by reading the regestry &co).
Plug and play Linux.
I'm starting with simple things like networe
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Elrond should have taken care of the business once and for all.
If Elrond, or anyone else, had killed Gollum when they had the chance, all of Middle Earth would have fallen to Sauron.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
did you not read the books? or even watch the preamble? elrond was there when the ring was taken from sauron. elrond did not ensure that it was destroyed in mt. doom right there and then. this has nothing to do with gollum.
I thought it was spelled eWEEK and EWeek.
Dave Barnes 9 breweries within walking distance of my house
He contradicted himself and spouted a lot of mistruths about the other players in the Linux field. Thats okay I dont trust troublemakers anyway and Rachiver and PubPat are nothing but troublemakers.
ballmer is an idiot and has no business running an it company than my dog. it is no wonder other coutries hate the us when douche-bags like ballmer come and threaten them with us laws. I am sick of hearing from him why doesn't he just shut the hell up and let people make up their own minds without the threat of being sued. This tells how bad microsoft is hurting - their threatening lawsuits to get their software in the door. Next steve will threaten other countries over his recipes that he makes - he probably took a patent out on them - since from his fat ass he probably likes to cook and eat everything that he cooks. And by the way my house is windows free and always will be - they can stick xp up ballmers fat ass.
With closed source it is harder to know if someone is violating a patent or not. Much closed source *does* violate patents, but the source is not visible and it is therefore harder to prosecute. With open source, any infringing patents are more obvious and more provable which opens up risk.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Bear shits in woods.
But as a fortune 500 company, are you going to say the same thing?
The FUD's not aimed at the hope hobbyist - it's amed squarely at the Fortune 500 company that's considering Linux.
And THEY'RE going to have to worry about being sued.
If you want to say something about patents and wan't to be 100% sure noone will twist your words and use them to their own advantage, say nothing.
"Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
Gee, why doesn't that surprise me? That is how M$ does business.
If Linux weren't a better operating system, then Microsoft wouldn't see Linux as a threat. If Linux weren't a threat, then Microsoft would have to resort to lies to keep people on Windows.
Want a good OS? Get Mandrakelinux
Registered Linux User
Registered KDE User
That would make sense for copyright infringment, but not patent infringement. You don't patent source code. Technically your not supposed to patent a function either, only a physical object which you've actually constructed. But software patents are on functions the software performs, most violations can be seen at a higher level than the sourcecode. For instance "A method by which an ascii encoded text file is interpreted for the purpose of deriving values".
It doesn't take seeing the sourcecode to determine if a program uses a text based configuration file. The reason every program violates so many patents is that our wonderful patent office would rant the above patent tomorrow if filed by a customer who spends enough on patent fees each year!
"With closed source it is harder to know if someone is violating a patent or not. Much closed source *does* violate patents, but the source is not visible and it is therefore harder to prosecute. With open source, any infringing patents are more obvious and more provable which opens up risk."
....or is it? IANAL, but what if a judge subpoenaed the source code?
I think that, going forward, it much more likely that customers will pay up through their noses for copied Open Source code, obfuscated in proprietary apps, than the other way around. The real Legal test (it might have already happened, I am no Legal) will be enforcing GPL against someone emmbedding open source in closed source apps.
"If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
Not really.
This is also a threat, but it is also an indication why software patents are a Really Bad Thing. If Microsoft spent a few hundred million buying up ALL the "potentially infringed" patents and tried to litigate them, how many would be invalidated in court? How many of them would already be cross-licensed by the "big players" in the Linux game? How many of those "big players" would step up to the plate to defend their FOSS revenue stream? I'd be willing to bet IBM would be there, given that I've recently seen reports that their Linux-based revenue stream has exceeded the revenue they derive from their OWN patent portfolio. How many Microsoft cross-licensing deals would be invalidated by filing suit (a standard poison pill included in cross-licensing contracts)?
Sounds like too big a gamble to me.
utter rubbish
"the elves took their 3 rings with them across the water"
yep, but only once the One was destroyed. They needed the Three to resist Sauron in the meantime.
I don't think you know what you are talking about. Patents have nothing to do with the source code being open, they have to do with functionality. Like amazon's 1-click shopping patent. I don't need the source code to see if I am violating it or not.
Why is the cost of recovering from malware never included in the TCO figures? How much time/money is spent annually recovering from such?
BTW, what is the difference between malware and microsoft's "conveniences"? They both "phone home", they both interfere with what you want to do with _your_ computer. At least malware doesn't force you to throw away perfectly good hardware to use the "latest and greatest". At least malware doesn't break apps from competitors with each new "update".
msKila, speaking easily (a "techie", not a "Ms.")
Therefore, if a patent infringes on Linux...
Darn those patents. Can the attorneys keep them from infringing on our IP?
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
Damn It Steve! Rtfa! Rtfa! Rtfa!
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
Now Microsoft will have to buy a new study that says what they want.
They deserved it if they choose to do it "the cheap way" (to save few bucks) and tried to base their argument on the study they did not pay. :)
hany
So you think that conversion to binary prevents somebody from determining what you have? And how exactly is it that file will show you exactly which type if system an executable is from? Or better yet, Why is it that MS is cracked so often? Think that crackers have the original source code?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
To quote a totally different movie:
"How can you shoot the devil in the back? What happens if you miss?"
...you're new here, aren't you?
... statistics, software release dates, software patent claims, Microsoft marketing.
I believe that's the accurate order of that chain of things.
You certainly make good points, but Microsoft can also certainly point at the large pool of possible employees which are already familiar with Microsoft products, which would have to be trained to use the Linux version. So training costs, when they differ between alternatives, can certainly be a factor in TCO.
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
No, not really. But the question isn't preventing making educated guesses about it, it's preventing getting definitive proof of it.
For the sake of argument, say I created a customized hybrid BSD/Linux system with some of my own code added in random places, used a custom compiler that likes to reorder code for the heck of it, obfuscated symbols and then I throw away the source. How do you prove that it was Linux and not BSD code that was used to generate a specific section? You can try to reverse engineer it, but proving which code base it orginally came from will certainly be difficult, often full of doubts, and in some cases impossible.
Even if MS spends all of its time reverse engineering, this may simply push people to leave the x86 architecture entirely, to chips that do not run Windoze, like PowerPC. How then will they prove any damages when the "privilege" of purchasing Windoze for that architecture is not even available? (Hmm, now I know why there are so many cross-licensing agreements going on.)
You insensitive clod!
Free Firefox news reader.
Except as we all know most of those people are fucking useless. The ones that aren't are every bit as valuable as their Unix-loving peers but the people who don't know their ass from... hey, what's that over there? -- they're not good for much are they? Most of the people you will meet with a Microsoft certification don't really have an understanding of the system, they just know some stuff about how to carry out specific operations, most of which you can learn from MSDN.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Oh sure, but I was thinking of desktop linux, and people who know MS Office, but get confused by the differences with Open Office (not having used Open Office, and use MS Office as little as possible, I'm guessing there are diffs). If there are _any_ differences there will be training. It may be that Open Office is actually easier to train a complete neophyte in, but that the bulk of employees will have experience with MS Office and need re-training.
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/